You say your not all that impressed with the Irving blog yet say you "might follow their style that you have to write your real name after you leave a comment". Perhaps your not all that different than the Irving's after all. So go for it Charles. Don't post anything that doesn't have a real name...How you would know it was a "real name" anyway without a whole lot of other information..(just like the Irving's)..That will teach all those leaving nasty comments a thing or too....Mind you a quick look back through your postings show that were it not for the constructive criticisms from those you now call your "enemies" the silence in here would be quite deafening....and we all know you like attention far too much to allow that to happen now don't we Charles.

Now if you can identify people that leave anonymous views (nasty or otherwise) as you say you did with Andrew MacKinnon, then why would you ever worry about anon's at all...just publish their names like you did with his. Also kind of odd that yo would take a jab at the Irvings for making people post their names in their blog then take credit for making the same Irvings change there policy on printing anonymous letters to the editor. Is it just a matter what best serves this blogger at the time?